Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part1)

[Wernazuma III]

To bring things ahead, I'm trying to filter the information we got from the 16 Civs included. If possible, it should remain more or less as it is, open questions are marked with colors. Please post further suggestions only if you find something definitely wrong (i.e.: put an incan city that didn't exist in Incan times) or if you absolutely CAN'T LIVE with something. Otherwise discussion will NEVER cease!

Point 1: The Civs included, according to Locutus' last update (this will NOT be changed anymore!); Where there were 2 choices for the names, I took the one that seemed more general or "popular" in the average mind:
1. Spanish
2. Mongols
3. Arab
4. Inca
5. Vikings
6. Turks
7. Phoenicians
8. Maya
9. Celts
10. Portuguese
11. Dutch
12. Hebrew
13. Ethiopians
14. Poles
15. Koreans
16. Khmer


Point 2: I'm posting here the conclusions I deduced from the different threads and Locutus' Homepage.
For today, the first 4 Civs will do, there's still plenty to discuss.

1. Spanish

Names: Spain, the Spanish, Spanish
Ruler/ Titel: Isabella/ Queen
Leaders: El Cid, Ferdinand, Pizarro, Cortes, Philipp II, Farnese
UU: Tercio (4/2/2)??; Saltpeter; replaces Musket Man
CSA : Militaristic, Religious
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Communism (?); Monarchy
Cities :
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Sevilla
Zaragoza
Merida
Cadiz
Toledo
Córdoba
Granada
Bilbao
Málaga
San Sebastián
Gijón
La Coruña
Albacete
Murcia
Salamanca
Santiago de Compostela
Ávila
Cáceres
Cuenca
Segovia
Ibiza
Cartagena
Valladolid
León
Santander
Oviedo
Tarragona
Almería
Vitoria
Lérida
Castellón de la Plana
Pamplona
Burgos
Badajoz
Alicante
Huelva
Almunecar
Rosas
Ampurias
Sagunto
Santa Cruz de Tenerife
Las Palmas
Isabella
Panama
Veracruz
Buenos Aires





The Mongols

Names: Mongolia, the Mongols, Mongol
Ruler/Title: Gengis/Great Khan
Leaders: Chepe, Sudebei, Muqali, Borte, Kublai, Aqbar, Timur Tamerlane
UU: Horse Archer (5/1/3); Horses; replaces Knight
CSA: Militaristic, Expansionist
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Democracy, Monarchy
Cities:
Karakorum
Dadu
Sarai Batu
Sarai Berke
Almalik
Yihe Huree
Samarkand
Bukhara
Kashgar
Otrar
Saray al-Dzedid
Hadji-Tarkhan
Beldzamen
Ukek
Qrim
Tana
Bulgar
Kazan
Djuketau
Herat
Kabul
Hormuz
Urgench
Orhei
Khiagt
Darhan
Erdenet
Bayan Tumen
Hovd
Uvs
Hovsgol
Dalan Balzhut

Arabs

Names: Arabia, the Arabs, Arab
Ruler/Title: Harun Al Rashid/ Caliph
Leaders: Umar ibn al-Khattab, Al Tarik, Al Mamun, Zenig, Baybars, Saladin, Nuredin, Amr ibn al-As, Arafat
UU: Camel Rider (5/3/2); Iron; replaces Knight
CSA: Religious, Commercial
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Communism, Monarchy
Cities:
Medina
Baghdad
Mekka
Cairo
Damascus
Tangier
Samarra
Raqqa
Beirut
Basra
Er-Riad
Mosul
Beirut
Cordoba
Aden
Algier
Tunis
Fez
Doha
Dubai
Palmyra
Casablanca
Manama
Sana
Kairouan
Homs
Amman
Qazvin
Halib
Barqa
Tripolis
Marrakech
Mahdia
Quahran
Port Said
Dschidda
Kuwait
Rabat
Kirkuk
Oujda
Bengasi
Sfax
Abu Dhabi
Tetouan
Ad-Dammam
Al-Hafuf
Hodeida
Al-Taif
In Salah
El Faiyam
Meknes
Kerbala

Incas

Names: Inca, the Incans, Incan
Ruler/Title: Atahualpa/ Inca
Leaders: Manco Copac, Tupac Yupanqui, Tupac Amaru, Huayna Capac, Topa Inka, Cusi Yupanqui, Pachacutec, Huascar
UU: Sun Warrior (2/1/1); replaces warrior
CSA: Industrious, Expansionist
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Democracy, Communism
Cities:
Cuzco
Tihuanaco
Machu Picchu
Chan Chan
Chimu
Moche
Chavin de Huantar
Quito
Paracas
Caramarca
Yucay
Tambo Colorado
Pisac
Huari
Ollantaytambo
Limatambo
Chachapoyas
Lambayeque
Huamachuco
Pachacamac
Kotosh
Recuay
Chiprac
Huaras
Paramonga
Pacasmayo
Ica
Nazca
Pisco
Tumbez
Sillustani
Tilcara
Huaca Prieta
Lauricocha
Pucara
Arequipa

[Stefu]

Looks good to me.

However, one thing about the Arabs. If Arab capital city is Baghdad, wouldn't that place them *way* too close to Babylonians in real Earth map, provided we get a map with stable starting locations?

[tomcat ha]

the turks woud be scientific and expansionist or religous.
UU woud be a patriot unit thingy. means lower coat than normal infantry.
or jantisar higher attack and able to built and convert workers in to jantisars.

[Wernazuma III]

Why can't newbies read?
The turks are not subject of discussion in this thread. Subject is only the 4 civs I put down right now and not generally but only in detail!
There are threads about all EP-civs, post there if you feel like it. We've discussed this over and over, this is stage 2!

Next time some other newbie will propose which Civ HE wants to have added...

[Wernazuma III]

Stefu, you're right on this. Let's wait for the first patch to come out. If we're then in the position to make correct starting locations, we probably should change the capital to Mekka.

[Jay Bee]

I believe the Incas would not be very happy with a city called Trujillo. That's precisely the Spanish town were Pizarro was born. In his honor a city with the same name was founded in Spanish Peru.

[Wernazuma III]

Gracias Jay Bee!

Although there are some Incan ruins near Trujillo you're absolutely right! You picked up exactly my example of what this thread is about.

-->Changed

[Wernazuma III]

I'd really appreciate help on the UU abilities. That's probably the hardest part, at least for me. Neither make them useless nor too powerful. Please help me especially in this aspect.

[Rosacrux]

You asked for it, here it comes:

Spain

Conquistador - if you make him a replacement of the explorer (thus rendering him really useless, mind you) you should give him an extra movement point. If you take into account that the conquistadores were nothing more than footsoldiers (or mounted standard soldiers) and that the fireguns gave them that advantage over the American natives, you should maybe think of making them the replacement for the musketman - with an extra movement point. But then they would be too strong... I don't know, I'll try to think this over.


Arabs

Mameluke - nice choice. A knight who doesn't require iron (maybe no horses too) what about that? Another war elephant, huh? Maybe one more point on the offense and no iron requirement (you still need those horses) that should make them viable and handy to have (and not too overpowered).

Mongols

Horse archer - cool. That's easy: 6-1-2. Or 5-1-3. The advantage of the Mongol horse archers was their superior mobility and the devastating blow they delivered when on the offense (defense was not their game). If you want to represent both, take no2. If only the latter, take no1.


Incas

Forgive me, I kinda tend to forget some things... Is the plummed archer an inca or aztec warrior? It would be nice to have an updated archer (none of them exists in the game, anyway) with one extra movement (a very handy unit for early expansion) or attack (they would look just like swordsmen then, though).
If not... sun warrior is ok, and the 2-1-1 looks kinda good to me.



About the shunned/favoured govs, I think Spaniards shouldn't shun communism (they always had large socialist/comunist parties ) but if you were to chose freely I'd say "Fascism"... they ain't such gov. type in the game though

Great job Wernazuma, carry on

[Wernazuma III]

thanks rosacrux

I updated the mongol and arab UU.

I tend to leave the inca UU as is. Although it's historically not very correct, we could make the plumed archer the mayan UU, for the other possibility would be "Balam Warrior" what means "Jaguar Warrior" and would be the same as the aztec UU...


We could make the shunned gov. of Spanish Democracy *fears arrival of spanish crowd*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Arabs

Names: Arabia, the Arabs, Arab
Ruler/Title: Harun Al Rashid/ Caliph
Leaders: Umar ibn al-Khattab, Al Tarik, Zenig, Baybars, Saladin, Nuredin, Amr ibn al-As, Arafat
UU: Mameluke (5/3/2); Horses; replaces Knight
CSA: Religious, Commercial
Shunned/Favored Gov.: Democracy, Monarchy
Cities:
Baghdad
Mekka
Samarra
Cairo
Damascus
Medina
Tangier
Raqqa
Beirut
Basra
Er-Riad
Mosul
Beirut
Cordoba
Aden
Algier Mahdia
Quahran
Port Said
Dschidda
Kuwait
Rabat
Kirkuk
Oujda
Bengasi
Sfax
Abu Dhabi
Ad-Dammam
Al-Hafuf
Hodeida
Al-Taif
In Salah
El Faiyam
Meknes
Tunis
Fez
Doha
Dubai
Palmyra
Casablanca
Manama
Sana
Qum
Homs
Amman
Qazvin
Halib
Barqa
Tripolis
Marrakech

Qom/Qum is a city in Iran, not an Arab city. Possibly replace with Kairouan? Or Tetouan? or Najaf and Kerbala?
Also, Baybars was a Turkish slave who became a Mameluke ruler, and Salah-ud-Din was a Kurd, and Tarik was a Berber. How about Muawiya, Abdul Rahman, al-Mamun, or Khalid ibn al-Walid?
The Mamelukes are not an Arab unit, in the sense we know it. The camel rider is:

651: Naval battle of the Masts against the Byzantines.
652: Discontentment and disaffection against the rule of Hadrat Othman.
656: Martyrdom of Hadrat Othman. Hadrat Ali becomes the Caliph. Battle of the Camel.
657: Hadrat Ali shifts the capital from Madina to Kufa. Battle of Siffin. Arbitration proceedings at Daumaut ul Jandal.

mb-soft.com/believe/txh/aisha.htm

and later, too!:

http://www.dnai.com/~soongliu/Savage...ica/camel1.jpg

[LoD]

Wernazuma III: I have collected most of the neccessary info about the Poles. Where should I post it?

[Wernazuma III]

Oops, how could Kairouan be lost on the way

I replaced Qum for Kairouan.

About the leaders: I know, that the Mameluk government in Egypt was carried by former turk-people slaves and that Saladin and Baybars were not arabs. Nevertheless they were parts of the arab "oikumene", the arab world, so I'd like to let them where they are.
I look up about the other leaders you mention and see if they would be a good addition. Abdul Rahman though is NOT a good idea, we don't want to offend Israelis here too much, don't you think?

[Wernazuma III]

LoD: I think, the Polish Civ has been discussed at length now, so I suppose, you now have a more or less "definitive version" already. If so, just send me a pm or mail me. The polish Civ will be in part 4 of the finalization project, so there is still time to discuss it in another own thread if you think that will still bring up good new ideas.

[Dr. Nick]

BTW, Pucara is not a city... Pucara is the quichua word for "fortress". I don't think you should add Pucara as a city. Tilcara, that is a pucara, but it's a town.

Calling an Incaic city "Pucara" would be like calling an English city "City".

[siredgar]

Does anyone know if Locutus is going to post the entire results of the poll? I'd like to see who didn't make the top 16 and their ranks. Sorry if this is not the appropriate thread to post this. NO FLAMES, PLEASE!

[Wernazuma III]

I've been to a town in the most northern part of Chile that is called Pucara (midway between Arica and the bolivian border. and has some inca ruins, so I dared to add it... . I'll add Tilcara too (it seems to be much bigger than Pucara


siredgar: The complete ranking is in locutus' "never ending story"-thread, post 2.

[Dr. Nick]

Weird... I didn't know that.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Rosacrux
but if you were to chose freely I'd say "Fascism"... they ain't such gov. type in the game though

This would ignore 40 years under Franco so I'm not sure Fascism would work either. This does raise another interesting question. What do we do with ancient civ which were mostly destroyed before the rise of democracy and republics? For example I've been contributing to the Celtic civ's discusion and that civ never really had an organized central government so it is difficult to say which types of government it liked or disliked.

So do what do we do about government prefrences for a civ like this?

[Wernazuma III]

Well Oerdin, I guess our only possibility is to "guess". For the Celts i.e. we could say that they shun Communism-even Caesar noted that Celts had many unfree populace, so "egalitarian" maybe is not a celtic quality. (Please, if you don't conclude with me in this point: Celts will be discussed in part 3).

And it will often happen that a Civ once in its history had the "shunned" gov. Just look at France: They shun Monarchy, yet people from the time of Louis XIV wouldn't understand that at all!


BTW: Changed favoured incan gov to Communism. I know that they were a monarchy, but many scholars concluded that incan society had many communistic elements (and after all: what communism did NOT have some elite class? )

[siredgar]

How long did this Incan civilization last anyhow? I read somewhere that it lasted less than 200 years (flourishing between 1438-1534). The Mayans seemed to be much more significant, lasting over a thousand years.

Regardless, I don't know if I'd put the Mayans in a Civ III expansion pack when there are already the Aztecs. Weren't the Aztecs vis-a-vis Mayans similar to dynasties in China?

By the way, the Portuguese and Dutch have more global influence, the Turks have greater territorial reach, and the Koreans have an older civilization (5,000 years) than any of these.

Anyhow, I'd put the Incans down a few notches just based on lack of longevity.

Rank #4: laughable.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by siredgar
How long did this Incan civilization last anyhow? I read somewhere that it lasted less than 200 years (flourishing between 1438-1534). The Mayans seemed to be much more significant, lasting over a thousand years.

The Aztec empire didn't last longer and the mayans didn't even have an empire. The Incan like the Aztecs built on a long row of states and civilized peoples that inhabited the same space, therefore their civilizations lasted as long as the mayans. With the names "Aztec" and "Incan" all those peoples are integrated (same goes for iroquiois and babylonians if you remember)

Regardless, I don't know if I'd put the Mayans in a Civ III expansion pack when there are already the Aztecs. Weren't the Aztecs vis-a-vis Mayans similar to dynasties in China?

They are as distinct from each other as french are from german, persians from babylonians or egyptians from arabs and I can tell for I work on both of them.

By the way, the Portuguese and Dutch have more global influence, the Turks have greater territorial reach, and the Koreans have an older civilization (5,000 years) than any of these.
Anyhow, I'd put the Incans down a few notches just based on lack of longevity.

Rank #4: laughable.

Opinion, as valid as all others, though it wouldn't be difficult to challenge. But the point of the poll was a democratic decision and it has been made, so this is not the place to disqualify it, especially not with a 3 sentence critique that lacks substance.
I'm always in the mood to discuss such stuff, but not in a thread that shall be constructive and your post is not constructive for the purpose to make only minor arrangements to general decisions already made.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Oops, how could Kairouan be lost on the way

I replaced Qum for Kairouan.

About the leaders: I know, that the Mameluk government in Egypt was carried by former turk-people slaves and that Saladin and Baybars were not arabs. Nevertheless they were parts of the arab "oikumene", the arab world, so I'd like to let them where they are.
I look up about the other leaders you mention and see if they would be a good addition. Abdul Rahman though is NOT a good idea, we don't want to offend Israelis here too much, don't you think?

Aahh, sorry, think we must be at cross purposes. I meant Abdul/Abd ar Rahman, founder of Umayyad Caliphate in Cordoba. Not so objectionable, I believe...

[Caesar2760]

Might I suggest that the Mongols be given a better advantage than their UU would imply? Perhaps it would have no iron necessary, or something like that. Also, it should have low production to build it, as it was more its numbers than its power that would allow a Mongol army to defeat one lead by knights.

[Wernazuma III]

I think that Horses should still be required for mongol UU and that a movement bonus (3 movement after all!) gives quite a bonus. But maybe I'm wrong, so please correct me (after all I'm not good at Civ3, I only play on regent )

[Stefu]

I think 5/1/3 is a pretty good unit. You can use it to strike quite fast, and while defense is what it is, movement 3 gives them a good chance to clean out units seeking to strike at them before they get at any distance.

[Oerdin]

Since we are listing some of the UU already I'd like to point out that all of the official UUs from firaxis were preexisting units which had no more then one +1 to either movement, attack, or defense. A few lucky units also don't need a strategic resource that everyone else needs but mostly Firaxis was careful not to make an "uber" unit.
Some of the units I've seen proposed in threads have way more then just a simple +1 bonus. I suggest we stick to Firaxis's plan and make it a rule that no unit will get more then one +1 and that no more then a single strategic research requirement be waived. This will prevent one super civ from dominating the entire game.

[Wernazuma III]

Oerdin: You're right that the UUs are the most delicate thing about the Expansion Pack. I try to care that no UU gets too strong. I kinda have the feeling that the mongol UU is maybe too strong. When we finally get to make the pack, we'd need 4 or 5 testers who take a look at game balance. But if you have suggestions for the UUs, please go ahead. BTW, you're mostly right, but the Impi gets 2 bonuses (and is therefore more expensive) and the War Elephant needs neither horses nor iron.

[Wernazuma III]

molly: I didn't know that there is more than one Abdul Rahman, now I understand! Nevertheless I won't add him, because if I confuse him with the Hamas leader, most people who know the name Abdul Rahman will have this association.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
molly: I didn't know that there is more than one Abdul Rahman, now I understand! Nevertheless I won't add him, because if I confuse him with the Hamas leader, most people who know the name Abdul Rahman will have this association.

Perhaps if we change it to Abd ar Rahman, then the Cordova caliphate will still get a mention? It's one of my favourite civs, or offshoots of a civ, because of its tolerance, public works, architecture, zest for knwoledge, etc. Ah, well, we live in hope...

Fine work, by the way.